ReviewCritical care research and practice2026
Clinical Scores for Predicting Outcomes in Pediatric Oncology Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Critical care research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Scores for Predicting Outcomes in Pediatric Oncology Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care research and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pediatric oncology patients with sepsis are at high risk of morbidity and mortality due to immunosuppression and acute or fulminant multiorgan dysfunction. There have been many clinical scores proposed for risk of mortality prediction (PELOD-2, pSOFA, and Phoenix), but it remains unknown how well these scores predict risk in pediatric oncology patients with sepsis. Objective: To systematically review and meta-analysis the predictive performance of clinical scores and evaluate the incremental benefit of biomarkers in pediatric oncology patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase through 2025. Eligible studies were those that assessed PELOD-2, pSOFA, Phoenix, or prognostic scores in pediatric oncology patients with sepsis. Risk of bias assessment was completed using QUADAS-2. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) estimates across studies. Results: A total of 32 articles were summarized with cohorts of 50-1200 patients per study. PELOD-2 and pSOFA demonstrated consistent and strong discrimination for mortality (AUC 0.78-0.88) while the Phoenix score demonstrated moderate discriminatory ability (AUC 0.72-0.83) and little validation. Procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, lactate, and other biomarkers improved predictive accuracy when combined with clinical scores. In summary, the overall risk of bias was rated to be moderate, largely due to predominately retrospective designs. Conclusions: PELOD-2 and pSOFA are the most validated prognostic tools for pediatric oncology patients with sepsis, while the Phoenix score may be useful in selected settings. Integration of biomarkers improves risk stratification. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to refine prognostic models and guide early interventions in this high-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.